Rachel Maclean- Make Me Up

The film begins with the exterior of a brutalist, concrete building that morphs into a candy coloured dream house. A presenter appears onscreen with the wealthy English male voice of authority that we comfortably expect  in quintessential BBC documentaries. He approaches the shiny pink, festive statue of a sexualised girl and awakes the person encrusted within. The girl, representative of the frilly, silly childishness women are taught to embody, submissive so not to threaten, joins her fellow dolls and is made to perform tasks for the authority figure. These needless, subservient tasks parody famous stereotypes of art history, social history, and the role of a good women. An undercurrent of fear and violence is palpable…(familier?) The losers of the game are withheld food despite their rumbling stomachs and the winner can only eat out of necessity and under supervision.

The names of the girls (Siri, Alexa) minic the acceptable objectification that we often celebrate- cars, technology, guitars are lovingly referred to with exclusively female names. Objects to be proud of, played with and used. Siri’s short lived friendship with Alexa ends in betrayal, Siri losing her nerve and sacrificing Alexa to a cannibalistic fate. As there is only room at the top for one woman and taking down the competition is easier than changing the patriarchy. The back-stabbing, bitchy drama that gives comfort to the patriarchy is reinforced- we are divided and conquered. If we eat ourselves alive is the onus on us, rather than the oppressors?

When alone in her bedroom Siri discovers that the cameras that keep them under constant surveillance can be tricked by drawing extra eyes on her face with makeup, confusing the facial recognition programming. Although this seems like a potential tool for freedom, she is still abiding by the rules of the game- there is strict distinctions of what is pretty, and makeup and changing ourselves is vital to exist. Are we too far gone, culture too internalised to escape this way of thinking? With Siri’s new found tactic she is free to creep around the pastel pink facility. In her little girl clothes and obvious fear the situation is reminiscent of any institution, tapping in to the primal fear of unknown places and people. We are scared of judgement when starting new schools or jobs however are supported by the safe social conventions of politeness that are absent online and do not protect our most vulnerable thoughts and feelings from trolls. Around the building and in her nightmares of plastic surgery there are glimpses of a middle aged white man, formally dressed and very similar to the accused from the Me Too movement, and every young girl’s uncomfortable experiences in the local pub, or bus to school.

The films concludes in a bloodbath of chopping limbs and the disparate overlapping of disjointed speech. The women struggle, and finally defeat the men but the arguments that follow lead to questions about whether emancipation can actually be reached, and should it? The final scene shows Alexa in the abandoned ruins of the building, still embodying a classical pose alone. Siri returns to her and they kiss. Siri, although fatter than before (now she is allowed to eat) still has the artificial face achieved through surgery and makeup. A last remaining camera spys their kiss that is then broadcast to the world. This shows again that the only love existing between a women is for a man’s sexual gratification, and still we are festishised pawns serving the will of the patriarchy.

Jasmina Cibic

Jasmina Cibic’s piece is a sharp, high definition view of an artistic future. A sculptor enters the bright, open atmosphere of the scene wearing modern, sophisticated clothing with a precise red haircut that echoes the red, blue black and white colour palate of the entire film. She speaks confidently and precisely, juxtaposing a poetic style with a determination reminiscent of a politician’s address. Two more stylish women enter while the sculptor is working on a female form, and they discuss the role of art, and what it represents. Should art make money? Should it be beautiful, or about the artist’s brand? All very important questions to a contemporary artist. Art is now a commodity and since Duchamp, are we now even alienated from making process, like any other product available to purchase? With our constant connection now with social media, we have all become a brand- we can now control down to the colour of our eyes how the world perceives us. Our down time is now dedicated to image management, following the trends so that we can project the upmost visage of fun, health and glamour to rake in the optimum amount of likes. Capitalism has reached the digital, our image is the commodity and likes the currency.

As the women in the film discuss the position of art, and what they want to present to the public, I question whether they represent the state, the artist world, or the individual, creating propaganda without the worry of truth and integrity. This idea of commodification is reinforced by the striking shots of the grounds of the building. Naked women pose on plinths as smart men study them for life drawings. The women are beautiful, statuesque but definitely pale and vulnerably naked against the stark sky. Is this symbolic of the male gaze, even with the powerful vocal women inside? However whilst inside, having moved from the sculpture studio they now debate in an exhibition space, covering and uncovering black female forms with a blood red cloth. As they do this they talk again of what art and messages to reveal to the audience. They are in control of what is acceptable to be

viewed, and who gets that privilege. Art and politics are exclusive realms and only the worthy are allowed to enter- taste, value and skill are abstracts that are dictated by the people on top. I believe that this is a central issue in the art world today. The concepts and imagery used are often elitist and inaccessible for someone not educated in specific areas of the arts, and even some buildings are too intimidating for the general public to enter. A sense of ego elevation is gained from understanding high culture where others cannot, but should arrogance really be valued over communication? Art is a cultural tool used to express any important feeling or idea, and to isolate people from this experience represents the greed and contempt that capitalism has cultivated.

Continuing my interest in perfection and the representation of beauty, I've begun looking at selfie culture on social media, particularly on Instagram. By taking photos and heavily editing them I intend to reclaim the 'flaws' that we all hate. Rather than aspects to hide with filters and clever lighting I want to turn these natural imperfections into interesting, if not beautiful images.

Jeff Koons Exhibition at Norwich Castle

My favourite pieces in this exhibition were the advertisements Koons created to publicise a New York show in 1988.He entered the ads into leading art magazines- directly confronting both viewers and critics with his work. I find Koons' idea of transposing this imagery back into the media format it originated from really interesting. The controversial questions of the value of kitsch that are so frequently raised in 20th century art are given a fresh angle by placing the work back into the realm of main stream culture.

 From Hamilton's collages to Warhol's Cola bottles Kitsch influences often infiltrate the art world, but are the pop culture references that also preside over Koons' career worthy to be viewed as 'Fine Art'? Do cartoons, cheesy slogans and brand names have a place in the cultured White Cube? Koons renders this debate obsolete. With this series he reminds the superior magazines which argue this question of their hypocrisy: he appropriates their own visual language and also their very identities to prove the value of such work, and cultural significance of pop art. 

Francis Bacon and the Masters

This exhibition at the Sainsbury Center presented both works by Bacon and by several old masters (including Titian, Van Gogh and Rubens) with which he had an "obsession" (although I don't entirely agree with this phrasing- don't all artists have an interest, or obsession, with the masterpieces shown?). 

Jonathan Jones of the Guardian calls the exhibition a "cruel exposure, a debacle": showing Bacon's work next to such greats as Bacon's beloved Velasquez, for instance, taints and diminishes his own work. While I agree that paintings such as Van Gogh's Landscape full of vibrancy and atmosphere outshine his own paintings this was not perhaps due to Bacon's work itself. Many of the works shown were unfinished- paintings the artist did not want exhibited, and some were even simply used as his palettes. Is it really fair to compare an artist's trash to Titian? Personally, I would be mortified if my work presented in this way. 

sketch of Michaelangelo Sculpture

Despite this, several of Bacon's pieces do stand out- I especially loved a portrait of Lisa Sainsbury. The dark background and white skin of the subject are typical of his work. They leave a ghostly impression, an imprint upon the canvas of the person that was once present. Vertical brush strokes streak her face, like rain drops on a window pane, washing away a reflection. This deterioration, the damaged glimpses of pale delicacy reminds me of Basil Hayward's master piece: Dorian. The same sense of beauty's fragility; how something so young and fresh shall be left scarred and altered by the passing of time.

 

“But we never get back our youth… The pulse of joy that beats in us at twenty becomes sluggish. Our limbs fail, our senses rot. We degenerate into hideous puppets, haunted by the memory of the passions of which we were too much afraid, and the exquisite temptations that we had not the courage to yield to.” 

― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

For me, this strong awareness of mortality, of each day whithering more, presents a darker side to Rubens' portraits. Although the Old Manis frail and wrinkled the warm tones celebrate the life which is surely soon to end. Is Bacon just perhaps a realist, casting off the romantic veil that shrouds the masters' work? 

Lisa Sainsbury, Francis Bacon

In the final room of the exhibition his works take on a more modern feel, revealing his contemporary influences of abstract expressionism. Vast planes of colours are interjected with fleshy, organic takes on the human form. My personal favourite is the bull fighting triptych; he uses shapes that stray from traditional art vocabulary (stylised circles and arrows) which create even more of a jolt when juxtaposed against the raw, wounded leg on one canvas. The sterile empty planes place the pain in a clinical setting- a hospital? The connotations of this again being creeping death and mortality. 

Triptych. Francis Bacon

I really enjoyed this exhibition and do believe that the tortured existentialism of Bacon's work does indeed stand up against older venerable master pieces. As an artist, it is interesting for me to see Bacon's working methods, however,I feel it is unjust to present these as part of the same context, if not for the sake of the audience's pleasure, then for the artist himself. 

 As a visual to accompany my sound piece, I have almost completed a video to be shown uncomfortably big, intimidating the audience. As with the sound, I have taken gestures from make up tutorials and removed them from their original context revealing them as strange grotesque even, abstractions.

   Continuing with my interest in text I have been working on a sound piece this week. By transcripting make up tutorials from Youtube I have taken the words completely out of the friendly, youthful original context. The bizarre phrases seem normal when accompanied by a smiling face and jaunty backing music, but how would the audience react when I change these factors?

I have also been thinking a lot about identity. The idea for this piece was originally intended as a feminist statement on beauty standards, but after watching the film Paris is Burning this is changing in my work. The film shows the drag queen and gay culture of 80's Newyork; is my focus on only women and make-up too narrow minded when there are many other complicated issues to explore?

This prompted me to use male voicesto read my script, subverting the traditional gender stereotypes. I am notyet sure how to edit the clips: whether to play them simultaneously; either on one track, or on several different speakers; whether to split the tracks so parts play at different times, or to change the volume of parts to change which are more prominent at different times. I am experiementing with all of these options, however using the computer program is proving hard for me (I struggle with new programs) so a lot of work is needed before my piece will be finished. 

(image from http://www.oystermag.com/sites/default/files/wp-archive/2011/01/paris-is-burning-poster.jpg)